| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| US forces to 'flatten Falluja' before Iraq's first vote |
| 2004-10-04 |
| WHILE all eyes are on the US presidential election on November 2, the White House is also concerned with another poll planned for January. Iraq's first free and democratic elections early next year drive US military policy in the region and the war on terror as much as President George Bush's battle against Senator John Kerry next month. As the insurgency in Iraq intensifies and the conflict dominates the political agenda, US military strategists aim to have quelled all rebel controlled parts of the country before the January election. At the US presidential election voters will choose between Bush and his unilateral militarist approach, and Kerry who blames the president for the current crisis and has vowed to seek international co-operation before the White House embarks on any further armed adventures. Faced with the most ferocious fighting since the fall of Saddam Hussein, Bush faces a tricky strategical balancing act in the run-up to the election. On the one hand, he must be seen to be asserting some control over the Iraqi and foreign al-Qaeda-backed militants attacking US forces. But he also knows he cannot risk incurring high US casualties because the sight of large numbers of American troops coming home in body bags would benefit the Kerry campaign. But after November 2, the gloves can come off, allowing Bush the chance to launch a no-holds barred blitz on the insurgents in the two month window until the January elections. And if some reports from the intelligence community are correct, Bush is planning an all-out crackdown with some suggesting it would involve practically flattening Falluja, the base of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. |
| Posted by:Mark Espinola |
| #44 Rebellion is not the correct word - civil war is. The baathists are out of power and want to regain it. This civil war will ultimately have to be won by the free Iraqis. There is no other way - |
| Posted by: JP 2004-10-04 10:56:49 PM |
| #43 Crgier-Anon, you're full of crap. You have no real sources if thats what you claim they say. Resistance is still primarily amongst the Fedahenn Saddam, Baathists and foreign fighters like thZawqari's Wahabbists. A vast majority of the Iraqis just want to be left alone to rebuild, and they welcome US forces when we can clear out the tin-pot Taliban wannabees, so they can go about the business of rebuilding thier communities without risk of being shot or their family threatened. They simpley want us to clear out the bad guys, bring in Iraqi police and security, fund reconstruction (that will bring jobs to the area), and get back out of town. "Widespread rebellion" is bull - and so are you for spreading it. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-10-04 10:16:12 PM |
| #42 Well hell TW, don't you at least give Arnett credit for a Meme start? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-10-04 7:42:46 PM |
| #41 But it was Peter Arnett who invented the statement, "In order to destroy the village, we had to destroy it," the first of his long series of lies-for-career. I thought everybody knew that! |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2004-10-04 7:32:08 PM |
| #40 CG4532: Infrastructure damage in Iraq escalates by the second. That Vietnam era statement, "in order to destroy the village, we had to destroy it," is beginning to make sense to me, for the first time. My military contacts tell me that opposition to the US liberation is so general, that rebellion might be the correct word. 2 or 3 US military dead are being sustained on a daily basis, compared to almost 2 dozen a day in South Vietnam, which wasn't anywhere close to rebelling against the US presence. The situation is out of control only in the minds of the media. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-10-04 5:10:40 PM |
| #39 Infrastructure damage in Iraq escalates by the second. That Vietnam era statement, "in order to destroy the village, we had to destroy it," is beginning to make sense to me, for the first time. My military contacts tell me that opposition to the US liberation is so general, that rebellion might be the correct word. Ergo: extreme action might be necessary, to neutralize Sunni and Shiite areas where Islamofascists rule. The gloves could be off soon, although I doubt if it will be before the US election. |
| Posted by: Criger Griger4532 2004-10-04 4:56:50 PM |
| #38 I'm throwing in the first dollar for you JQC, next time your on your own. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-10-04 4:41:29 PM |
| #37 lex, about 25,000 additional Iraqi security forces should be fully trained and ready to contribute by the end of Nov / early Dec IIRC. |
| Posted by: rkb 2004-10-04 2:15:32 PM |
| #36 Like the Rantburg site for the most part. I will probably have to go through some 12 step program to wean myself away to pay the bills. |
| Posted by: John (Q. Citizen) 2004-10-04 1:51:13 PM |
| #35 Are the Iraqi forces capable of holding Samarra, Fallujah etc after we've seized them? Is this the only thing holding us back from an all-out offensive right now rather than in Nov-Dec? |
| Posted by: lex 2004-10-04 1:38:47 PM |
| #34 interesting stuff on wretchard lately on this. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-10-04 1:33:55 PM |
| #33 Oh, lex, you're such a pig... ;) |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-10-04 1:28:54 PM |
| #32 Or Honduras in the 1980s. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-10-04 1:25:40 PM |
| #31 You know if they can have election half as safe as India then I would call that success. Check on India Electilons and violence and you'll see they go hand-in-hand. We will probably see some bombs, gunfire, and deaths at the polls come January. Expect it but don't be detered by it. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2004-10-04 1:22:45 PM |
| #30 JQP: Fallujah needed to be taken down. We were fiddly-friggin around with it too long. It's not just the practical aspects of deferring a final resolution to Fallujah until reliable garrison troops are available that is correct. The political aspects are also correct - Iraqis have been subjected to decades of anti-Amerian propaganda. Many instinctively see the US as the root of all evil in Iraq. By giving former regime elements in Fallujah a chance, during which they turned the place into a charnel house, our guys are showing Iraqis that former regime elements are the bad guys - Saddam wasn't the only problem - all of his foot soldiers were, as well. When Fallujah gets pacified this time around, Iraqis will be baying for the blood of the guerrillas, just as they bayed for the blood of Sadr's men. For a democratic climate favorable to future American interests in Iraq, we must be seen as the good guys. Overcoming decades of anti-American propaganda is difficult, but giving the insurgents the opportunity to see the error of their ways before crushing them is essential to winning Iraqi goodwill. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-10-04 12:38:21 PM |
| #29 Guys, thank you for your kind words, and the latin lesson. (Lex, pig latin next, ok?) Ed, I saved the site for future reference when y'all go scholarly on me ;-). Whatcha think: have I learned something here at Rantburg U? John: I don't kick ass. Its undignified, and tends to annoy the donkeys, who are usually lots bigger than li'l ol' 4'11 3/4" me. But, freedom of speech should not be, in my humble opinion, equated with uncritical support of those who lie. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2004-10-04 12:35:49 PM |
| #28 JQP: enThay on'tday ontributeday. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-10-04 12:23:08 PM |
| #27 JQP: Fallujah needed to be taken down. We were fiddly-friggin around with it too long. I think you're missing the point. We cannot take a city until we have reliable Iraqi troops available to garrison the place. Fallujah failed, but it was a useful experiment because it provided an answer to the question of whether we could rely on former Iraqi army troops to garrison Iraqi cities - the answer was no. It does not make sense for Americans to garrison these cities because we don't have the manpower to do this and fight the insurgents at the same time. In South Vietnam, it was always South Vietnamese forces that acted as garrison troops while US forces sought out the enemy. Locals are far better at distinguishing between friend and foe. Garrison troops also take a lot of casualties. South Vietnam lost 250,000 troops compared to our 58,000. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-10-04 12:22:39 PM |
| #26 Hey I took shop--not Latin. Can't contribute. |
| Posted by: John (Q. Citizen) 2004-10-04 12:20:30 PM |
| #25 If my schoolboy latin serves, "tuum quoque" literally means that to you, too. In other words, the roman equiv of same to you, pal |
| Posted by: lex 2004-10-04 12:17:07 PM |
| #24 Trailing Wife, excellent post. Thank you. |
| Posted by: Anonymous5032 2004-10-04 12:15:55 PM |
| #23 Sorry about the double post. Didn't know the Arabs were so strong on filial obedience. If they hate GW, he must be doing it right. I don't have a great knowledge about Arab culture. Personnaly I think they are our enemy. |
| Posted by: John (Q. Citizen) 2004-10-04 12:07:05 PM |
| #22 #16 Trying to get a response to your post. Having some difficulty cutting and pasting--something to do with running with scissors. Good analysis. Appreciated. No evidence for linking Bush to the Clerics. Anon is probably a leftwing dingbat Democrat trying to make a statement about GW's religiousness. They hate his certainty of direction. The bombing is going on. Should have started a few months back when the Marines had to backed off. I am strong on free speech even though it might be hogwash. Don't want to see the sight become a mutual admiration society where we all agree with each other. I don't mind a good verbal ass kicking now and then. I give about as good as I get. |
| Posted by: John (Q. Citizen) 2004-10-04 12:01:59 PM |
| #21 "tuum quoque" means you, too. A good example now is the Donks meme: "Bush is the flip-flopper." |
| Posted by: SR-71 2004-10-04 11:55:33 AM |
| #20 tuum quoque? See Logical Fallacies. Search for "Tu Quoque". Concrete bombs were in use by 1999 or before during the No Fly Zone enforcement. The Iraqis had a bad habit of locating antiaircraft batteries in populated areas. The US military, being PC, instead of impressing upon the Iraqis the urgent need to flee at the first site of Iraqi arms in their neighborhood, decided to drop laser guided concrete filled bombs. Also works well on tanks. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-10-04 11:47:39 AM |
| #19 "And finally, it is my understanding that the concrete bombs were actually quite successful" It is my understanding that it was the British who came up with the idea of concrete bombs and they figured it out near the end of the first rounds of combat. Things were pretty much over before Bush could have ordered the Air Force to use them. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2004-10-04 11:32:19 AM |
| #18 This mission calls for lots of Buffs, bombs, and beer. This has been a long time coming. Make it a parking lot and then pave it over. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2004-10-04 11:14:47 AM |
| #17 To everyone else, I apologize for my long-windedness. John (Q. Citizen) appears ready for a long flame war, and we have more important things to do on this thread. Sr-71, latin isn't one of my languages, and I'm feeling too lazy to search out my daughter's latin-english dictionary as I usually do. What does tuum quoque mean? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2004-10-04 10:56:41 AM |
| #16 John (Q. Citizen), let's break down Anon's post together. Perhaps we can discover what so annoyed Mrs. D. Ready? (Nb: I use the masculine pronoun "he" to refer to Anon, because English is a default-masculine language, where "she" is used only when the individual is known to be female.) Bush forced the airforce to use Bush is known for listening closely to his experts, not forcing his choices upon them. Also, Bush is a flyboy from his TANG days, so if he were to force anybody, it isn't likely it would be the Air Force. And finally, it is my understanding that the concrete bombs were actually quite successful, so why does Anon complain? squelch local hate of America Hatred can't be squelched. This is not a reasonable expectation. What is implied by the fact that Anon expects Bush to do this? prop one-time elections Bush has repeatedly called for the establishment of real democracies in the Middle East, as the only way to end the care and feeding of Islamic fascismn that has been going on in the region for decades. What does it say about Anon that he thinks Bush is setting up Iraq for sham elections? Iraq seculars liquidate the Islamonazis for us The War on Terror, of which the battle for the body and soul of Iraq is one small part, is the result of a civil war within Islam for the soul of the religion -- between the moderates/non-jihadis on one side, and the Islamofascist jihadis (Wahabbis, Salafis, Deobandis, etc) on the other. Thus far the jihadis appear to be winning -- mostly because the moderates refuse to try to stop them. The very small number of non-Baathist secularists in the Arab world have no part to play in this internal religious conversation,and anyway they are generally academics and philosophers -- unlikely to be properly armed to liquidate anyone. Bush is too close to the clerics, to bomb Fallujah. Huh? Where did Anon get that idea? What have we been doing in the Sunni triangle (Fallujah, Samarra, Tikrit, etc, etc, etc) this past month at least? lets the Wahabis do his thinking This canard comes straight out of Democratic Underground propaganda. The Saudis loath G.W.Bush because most unfilially does not unconditionally love them as his father did. To the family/tribe orientation of Saudi society, such behaviour is no different than treason. I hope my little summary helps you to understand the position of Mrs. Davis and .com. I look forward to your reasoned response. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2004-10-04 10:50:51 AM |
| #15 JQC = submarine troll. These guys love to disrupt the comments. Stops the discussion, and no one here aspires to their level of discourse, "tuum quoque" |
| Posted by: SR-71 2004-10-04 10:31:02 AM |
| #14 Dissin' RB. Okay. Righty-O, JQC. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-10-04 10:22:15 AM |
| #13 OS, please, please, please be right. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-10-04 10:19:41 AM |
| #12 Rant and rave .com. So be it. That is what is done here. Maybe it is your time of month. Break out the Anaprox. Fallujah needed to be taken down. We were fiddly-friggin around with it too long. |
| Posted by: John (Q. Citizen) 2004-10-04 10:16:27 AM |
| #11 There are rumblings from folks I know... Fallujah just may be on its way into a hurt locker. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-10-04 10:10:21 AM |
| #10 Lol! Excuse? Defense? I found yours to be both an inane apology and clearly disingenuous - on behalf of a fool / cretin / troll. If you don't like mine, knock yourself out, not that I care, for you have zip zilch nada credibility, now. Blather on, if it floats your boat. FOAD / HAND |
| Posted by: .com 2004-10-04 10:04:28 AM |
| #9 Well what can I say there are lot of silly asses in this world. What's your excuse or defense of your post? |
| Posted by: John (Q. Citizen) 2004-10-04 9:58:57 AM |
| #8 JQC - Maybe? Lol! Mebbe you're his |
| Posted by: .com 2004-10-04 9:46:24 AM |
| #7 Well Mrs. D maybe Anonymous4336 was over the top. O.K. He was engaging in some freelance (maybe not freelance) Bush bashing. |
| Posted by: John (Q. Citizen) 2004-10-04 9:41:43 AM |
| #6 Dalas Corbin multitroll. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-10-04 9:33:39 AM |
| #5 He lets the Wahabis do his thinking for him is not an invitation to reasonable discourse to me. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-10-04 9:30:48 AM |
| #4 How about reasoned discourse? You might say go screw yourself which that is O.K. but "Did you check your 2 brain cells out before posting" doesn't sound like reasonable discourse to me. Let the guy say his piece. |
| Posted by: John (Q. Citizen) 2004-10-04 9:22:31 AM |
| #3 After retaking Fallujah, reroute the Bagdad-Jordan highway well away from Fallujah. Strangle any economic rational for the town's existence and scatter its tribes to the wind. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-10-04 6:16:49 AM |
| #2 "only when the remaining Iraq seculars liquidate the Islamonazis for us" All 5 of them Iraqi seculars. Yea, and Kerry "Let's give Iran nuke fuel and 'Global Test'" is da man to do the job, right. Did you check your 2 brain cells out before posting? |
| Posted by: Memesis 2004-10-04 2:57:20 AM |
| #1 No way! Bush forced the airforce to use concrete-bombs, in the early stages of GW2. It did nothing to squelch local hate of America. The solution for Iraq, is not to prop one-time elections that neo-Talibanis will win. America wins and gets a pro-America Iraq, only when the remaining Iraq seculars liquidate the Islamonazis for us. Bush is too close to the clerics, to bomb Fallujah. He lets the Wahabis do his thinking for him. |
| Posted by: Anonymous4336 2004-10-04 2:45:37 AM |